The effectiveness and uptake of financial incentives can differ substantially between reward- and deposit-based incentives. Therefore, it is unclear to whom and how different incentives should be assigned. In this study, the effect of different modes of assigning reward- and deposit-based financial incentives on effort is explored in a two-session experiment. First, students’ (n = 228, recruited online) discounting, loss aversion and willingness to pay a deposit were elicited. Second, an incentivized real-effort task was completed (n = 171, 25% drop-out). Two modes of assigning reward- or deposit-based financial incentives were compared: random assignment and ‘nudged’ assignment – assignment based on respondent characteristics allowing opting out. Our results show that respondents receiving nudged assignment earned more and persisted longer on the real-effort task than respondents randomly assigned to incentives. We find no differences in effectiveness between reward-based or deposit-based incentives. Overall, 39% of respondents in the nudged assignment mode followed-up the advice to take deposit-based incentives. The effect of deposit-based incentives was larger for the respondents who followed-up the advice than for respondents that randomly received deposit-based incentives. Overall, these findings suggest that nudged assignment may increase incentives’ effect on effort. Future work should extend this approach to other contexts (e.g., behaviour change).

Financial incentives for medication adherence have been controversial in mental healthcare. Much of the debate, however, may be based on a misconception of what financial incentives are and what their purpose is. Financial incentives are not meant to influence informed consent about treatment decisions, but to bridge the gap between intentions and behaviour and help patients achieve adherence to a treatment that they have agreed to. In this context, patients’ positive views may reflect that the use of financial incentives can support a good therapeutic relationship rather than undermine it.

Section 159 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 regulates corporate whistleblowing in companies registered under the act. This article critically evaluates section 159 to ascertain whether it adequately protects and encourages corporate whistleblowers. It compares this section with the whistleblower provisions in the Australian Corporations Act 2001, which have strongly influenced section 159 and which were recently reformed, and argues that in the light of the distressing levels of corporate corruption, the low reporting rates of wrongdoing and the widespread victimization of whistleblowers, there is a pronounced need to protect corporate whistleblowers in South Africa. It contends that section 159 does not go far enough in protecting and encouraging corporate whistleblowers, and calls for numerous important reforms to be urgently made.

This paper briefly reviews the development of monitoring procedures used for the assessment of husbandry and welfare within Farm Quality Assurance (QA) schemes. Most current protocols are based on measures of the resources, records and management provisions necessary to promote good husbandry. However, it is now generally accepted that monitoring protocols should be largely or wholly made up of direct, animal-based measurements of animal welfare. Whether based on provisions or outcomes, many current schemes lack impact, partly because they do not necessarily lead to effective action on-farm and partly through lack of public awareness or trust in the claimed benefits of the scheme. This paper proposes the concept of the ‘Virtuous Bicycle’ as a delivery vehicle for improvements in farm animal welfare through simultaneous operation of two virtuous cycles, one on-farm, involving assessment, action and review, the other at the retailer level, involving assurance and promotion, based on proof of compliance.

Although post-error slowing and the “hot hand” (streaks of good performance) are both types of sequential dependencies arising from the differential influence of success and failure, they have not previously been studied together. We bring together these two streams of research in a task where difficulty can be controlled by participants delaying their decisions, and where responses required a degree deliberation, and so are relatively slow. We compared performance of unpaid participants against paid participants who were rewarded differentially, with higher reward for better performance. In contrast to most previous results, we found no post-error slowing for paid or unpaid participants. For the unpaid group, we found post-error speeding and a hot hand, even though the hot hand is typically considered a fallacy. Our results suggest that the effect of success and failure on subsequent performance may differ substantially with task characteristics and demands. We also found payment affected post-error performance; financially rewarding successful performance led to a more cautious approach following errors, whereas unrewarded performance led to recklessness following errors.

When governments and healthcare providers offer people cash rewards for weight loss, an assumption is that cash rewards are versatile, working equally well for everyone – for example, for all genders. No research to date has tested for gender difference in response to financial incentives for weight loss. We show in an randomized controlled trial (RCT) (n = 472) that cash incentives for weight loss only worked for males. The RCT consisted of a 3-month, self-administered online weight loss program. Offering a US$150 incentive for a 5% weight loss more than tripled the proportion of males who were successful, compared with a no-incentive Control arm (20.9% vs. 5.9%). On average, males in the incentive arm lost 2.4% of weight over 3 months, compared with 0.9% in the Control arm. The same incentive had no such effect on females: The average weight loss in the incentive arm was not significantly different than in the Control (1.03% and 1.44%, respectively), nor was the proportion of participants meeting the 5% weight loss goal (8.6% and 8.7%, respectively). This study shows that males respond better than females to financial incentives for weight loss.

We study the combined effects of financial incentives and information provision on retirement behavior. To elicit preferences for retirement timing in the laboratory, we ask subjects to make retirement choices under different payoff schemes that introduce variation in financial incentives. Testing ceteris paribus conditions of the financial incentive alone shows a considerable delay of retirement once early retirement becomes financially less attractive. However, varying available information as another treatment parameter reveals considerable heterogeneity in the functioning of these incentives. Subjects who are explicitly informed about the expected pension wealth respond more strongly to financial incentives compared with those who only know their pension annuity. Being informed about a forward-looking measure of pension benefits makes the financial consequences of retirement choices more salient to the decision maker.

Up to 20% of additional income is being provided to UK general practitioners (GPs) to improve quality of care, through a complex set of quality indicators which relate principally to chronic disease management and organizational aspects of care. Using data from semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 20 GPs and responses from 1035 GPs to a questionnaire survey (53% response rate), we describe the initial impact of these incentives. GPs are employing more staff, especially nurses and data entry clerks, and computerizing their clinical records. Patients are more frequently seen in disease-oriented clinics run by nurses. While the health gains associated with the incentives may be realized, GPs predict that there may be unintended consequences, including reduced continuity of care, care fragmentation, neglect of unincentivized conditions, and the risk of damage to their internal motivation.

This target article is concerned with the implications of the surprisingly different experimental practices in economics and in areas of psychology relevant to both economists and psychologists, such as behavioral decision making. We consider four features of experimentation in economics, namely, script enactment, repeated trials, performance-based monetary payments, and the proscription against deception, and compare them to experimental practices in psychology, primarily in the area of behavioral decision making. Whereas economists bring a precisely defined “script” to experiments for participants to enact, psychologists often do not provide such a script, leaving participants to infer what choices the situation affords. By often using repeated experimental trials, economists allow participants to learn about the task and the environment; psychologists typically do not. Economists generally pay participants on the basis of clearly defined performance criteria; psychologists usually pay a flat fee or grant a fixed amount of course credit. Economists virtually never deceive participants; psychologists, especially in some areas of inquiry, often do. We argue that experimental standards in economics are regulatory in that they allow for little variation between the experimental practices of individual researchers. The experimental standards in psychology, by contrast, are comparatively laissez-faire. We believe that the wider range of experimental practices in psychology reflects a lack of procedural regularity that may contribute to the variability of empirical findings in the research fields under consideration. We conclude with a call for more research on the consequences of methodological preferences, such as the use on monetary payments, and propose a “do-it-both-ways” rule regarding the enactment of scripts, repetition of trials, and performance-based monetary payments. We also argue, on pragmatic grounds, that the default practice should be not to deceive participants.